Publico abaixo um texto de um amigo meu de Israel, Bruno Lima. Ele é formado em ciência política e sociologia pela Universidade Hebraica de Jerualem, e atualmente é mestrando e pesquisador de ciência política pela Universidade Hebraica. Acho o texto muito bom, e concordo com o que diz.
email para contato: email@example.com
The paradox of conditions
Netanyahu has failed in his diplomatic project, if we consider there was one. Mahmoud Abbas introduced himself as the partner Israel has been searching for a long time to develop a lasting peace process; our prime minister did not seize the opportunity. The Israeli public got used to arguments as “we will not negotiate under pre-conditions” or “I am willing to dialogue, but we will keep building on occupied territory”. These sorts of argument make us believe that Netanyahu plays under the following rationale: “I want to discuss about my peace, but you insist on talking about your peace; this way, we will not reach an agreement.” In this sense, the prime minister has succeeded in imposing his conditions: “I do not negotiate under pre-conditions”; it may seem a simple word game, but it is within this governmental rhetoric that one can find the interests hidden from the public eyes. In fact, the ‘paradox of conditions’, as I call this phenomenon, has been the strategy adopted in order to avoid the so-expected true dialogue; a dialogue that requires political willingness and diplomatic skill – qualities that our prime minister apparently does not possess. As a result of this strategy the Israeli people is now facing a deadlock that presents itself as follows: “either I am on “their side”, accepting their conditions, or I am on “our side”, defending my interests fervently. What was supposed to be a dialogue turned into a conflict; a process that should have approximated the two sides make them even more distant; the similarities have been shadowed by sharp differences and the Israeli population did not hesitate standing on its prime minister’s side. Netanyahu imposed his condition of no pre-conditions and at the first sight won the battle.
In fact, the evasive rhetoric employed by Benjamin Netanyahu was capable of dissuading the popular imaginary of the peace process. In this way, the prime minister did exactly what we expected him to do: nothing. In four years of cadency, Netanyahu insisted on saying that only with national security the Israeli people can get peace; instead, what we have been seeing is the institutionalization of fear rather than of peaceful environment. In fact, currently we do not feel there are neither a viable peace process under way nor a stable national security in the long run. The paradox of conditions strategy was unquestionably a mistake; it was so because while security has no conditions, peace definitely has. For true peace the two sides need to agree at some point, and to do so they must forgo their egoistic interests for a greater cause. Netanyahu has not perceived this difference and turned a diplomatic process into a justified military operation; the current situation in Gaza is the outcome of an Israeli political continuum: our government does not want a Palestinian State. Along the last four years we have seen a little bit more of the same policies. Actually, it has become hard to believe that the Israeli society will refrain itself from imposing conditions for peace; what is not taken into consideration is the fact that without these conditions the people of Israel can get a better condition of life. I genuinely hope I am wrong, but I am just afraid that the laden phrase ‘the people of Israel lives’ will lose its meaning.